|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 3, 2011 14:23:52 GMT
Help me out here. I see no benefit to governments at all. Really? Why haven't you moved to Somalia, then? You could live totally free of all that icky government. The notion that government serves no purpose is as farcical as the debt ceiling debate. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2011 15:14:43 GMT
That's more characiture than fact. He's being doing fairly well in some areas. He's just been bending far too far in compromising with a bunch of lunatic ideologues. The republican party with their absurd 'governments R bad' ideology is still clearly the worst choice by a mile. The notion that cutting government creates jobs is a good candidate for politfact lie of the year. Funky The caricature is the appearance of idealism, of being an idealist; the reality is that Obama and almost every other Federal-level politician simply CANNOT get elected without support from the major lobbies and that support comes directly at the price of being the idealists/ideologues they paint themselves and each other to be. Those are the facts. The problem isn't that government needs to go, the problem is that our current government is just far too massive and gives politicians far too much power. There is no conspiracy, only what happens when you put normal, fallible, human beings in positions of such incredible potential wealth and power. Obama, like the rest of them, like the rest of us, is only human. Because he is ***Obama*** or because someone has a D (or an R or an X or a P) doesn't make them saints or saviors. Likewise it doesn't make them wicked or devils. They are just *people*.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 3, 2011 15:56:16 GMT
The caricature is the appearance of idealism, of being an idealist; the reality is that Obama and almost every other Federal-level politician simply CANNOT get elected without support from the major lobbies and that support comes directly at the price of being the idealists/ideologues they paint themselves and each other to be. Those are the facts. Don't you watch the news? Almost the exact opposite is true in Obama's case - he's been a complete pragmatist, and not at all an ideologue, precisely for this reason. His liberal base is pretty cheesed off at him for it, too, over a huge variety of issues, from DADT, Gitmo, revenue - you name it. This claim of yours doesn't bear up to even superficial scrutiny. Funky
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Aug 3, 2011 21:18:54 GMT
Help me out here. I see no benefit to governments at all. Really? Why haven't you moved to Somalia, then? You could live totally free of all that icky government. The notion that government serves no purpose is as farcical as the debt ceiling debate. Funky Somalia, ok... but they have a government. They even have national emblems, songs, and so forth. Terrible place, I guess; live by the gun and all that; but they have a government none-the-less. So perhaps I miss your point. The only nations that don't have a government as we know it are very few and far between and are more nomadic by nature; from Bushmen to Khoikhoi and other tribal communities still surviving today. We killed or "democrotised" the rest of them. In fact, in 2009 when the Filipines was in utter devastation after severe flooding, guess who saved the day? The government! Ah shucks, wait they didn't even get out of bed that week. Instead, local communities worked together to get stuff done. Despite the fact that you react to my and other folks opinion with derision - and it is just that, opinion - I note that you don't answer the question at all. But I'll happily hear you enumerate their benefits.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Aug 4, 2011 0:01:39 GMT
Somalia, ok... but they have a government. They even have national emblems, songs, and so forth. Terrible place, I guess; live by the gun and all that; but they have a government none-the-less. So perhaps I miss your point. The only nations that don't have a government as we know it are very few and far between and are more nomadic by nature; from Bushmen to Khoikhoi and other tribal communities still surviving today. We killed or "democrotised" the rest of them. In fact, in 2009 when the Filipines was in utter devastation after severe flooding, guess who saved the day? The government! Ah shucks, wait they didn't even get out of bed that week. Instead, local communities worked together to get stuff done. Shirley you can't believe that the Somali government is in any way functional...or that the Philipine government has the capacity to respond to such widespread and devastating natural disasters? I don't think you'll find anybody arguing that government is perfect, just that it is a necessary evil.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 4, 2011 2:43:26 GMT
Despite the fact that you react to my and other folks opinion with derision - and it is just that, opinion - I note that you don't answer the question at all. Actually, I DID answer your question - though you didn't phrase it as such. Rather, you requested 'help' seeing the benefits of government. I pointed to failed states like Somalia in order to illustrate the rather obvious benefits of government. Ironically, it's YOU that didn't answer MY question - if you hate government so much, why not move someplace where it exists only on paper? I'm so tired of watching ideologues prattle on about the evils of government, and the people who parrot them unthinkingly. If you REALLY believed this about government, you have options, but you haven't acted on that 'belief' - you're just spouting babble. And yes, I responded to that babble with the derision it deserves. Anarchy is for idiots. Kindly stop spamming the thread with ill-conceived nonsense. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 4, 2011 2:47:48 GMT
Krugman's article is delicious progressive red meat. I enjoyed it thoroughly and agree with much of what he is saying. From the political scientists point of view, however, the "failure" of Obama's presidency has been expected since day one. In fact, the "failure" of every president in our current system is now all but assured. Here's a brief recap of why: *snip* I don't really buy this. While it's far more sophisticated that some of the 'analysis' in this thread, it's still oversimplified. I'll need to chew on it some more before I decide what the focal point of my dissatisfaction with it is. As to your Atlantic article, yeah, I've been saying that for a while. You can't bargain with crazy, and you can't meet it halfway. I'm still not sure if he's pandering to moderates to get re-elected, or what, but it's produced a lot of phail so far. And now, he's let the pubs tank the economy, which will severely threaten his re-election, so I'm left wondering what the hell he was thinking. 14th A was the way to go. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2011 3:37:55 GMT
The caricature is the appearance of idealism, of being an idealist; the reality is that Obama and almost every other Federal-level politician simply CANNOT get elected without support from the major lobbies and that support comes directly at the price of being the idealists/ideologues they paint themselves and each other to be. Those are the facts. Don't you watch the news? Almost the exact opposite is true in Obama's case - he's been a complete pragmatist, and not at all an ideologue, precisely for this reason. His liberal base is pretty cheesed off at him for it, too, over a huge variety of issues, from DADT, Gitmo, revenue - you name it. This claim of yours doesn't bear up to even superficial scrutiny. Funky It not only bears up, your scrutiny is proving my point. People are not mad at him for being the idealist that was the caricature he used of himself to get elected, people are upset at him for NOT being the idealist he claims to be. Kind of shocking that anyone today would argue against the perception of politicians as anything other money and power hungry liars.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 4, 2011 3:46:39 GMT
It not only bears up, your scrutiny is proving my point. People are not mad at him for being the idealist that was the caricature he used of himself to get elected, people are upset at him for NOT being the idealist he claims to be. That doesn't make any sense. You argued that the need to get reelected drove politicians to act like ideologues:
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Aug 4, 2011 8:41:21 GMT
Despite the fact that you react to my and other folks opinion with derision - and it is just that, opinion - I note that you don't answer the question at all. Actually, I DID answer your question - though you didn't phrase it as such. Rather, you requested 'help' seeing the benefits of government. I pointed to failed states like Somalia in order to illustrate the rather obvious benefits of government. Ironically, it's YOU that didn't answer MY question - if you hate government so much, why not move someplace where it exists only on paper? I'm so tired of watching ideologues prattle on about the evils of government, and the people who parrot them unthinkingly. If you REALLY believed this about government, you have options, but you haven't acted on that 'belief' - you're just spouting babble. And yes, I responded to that babble with the derision it deserves. Anarchy is for idiots. Kindly stop spamming the thread with ill-conceived nonsense. Funky Excellent point, right up there in the " if you don't agree with my limited view, then you hate xyz" kind of way. Like a talk show host I guess. So sure, if you insist, then you can claim I hate governments. You'd be wrong, but we won't let little things like fact get in your way, shall we? As for babble and spouting off things not understood, I did point out where governments around the world ARE failing, and funny enough you pointed out a situation where governments are epically failing (and it is more than "on paper"). A picky person would say you were babbling since your examples say you agree, yet your words following them don't. Importantly, if people didn't question government purpose and rebel against them where needed, there would be no Republic of Ireland, and definitively no America either - make no mistake, the American nation is made up of folks who stood up against oppressive government. That the "new" government is now more corrupt and oppressive (to individuals, sometimes on behalf of corporations) is amusing to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 4, 2011 13:24:09 GMT
Discussions are more fun when you don't respond to the other persons comments and rather just repeat previous ideas and point at non-sequitors.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Aug 4, 2011 14:00:37 GMT
As to your Atlantic article, yeah, I've been saying that for a while. You can't bargain with crazy, and you can't meet it halfway. I'm still not sure if he's pandering to moderates to get re-elected, or what, but it's produced a lot of phail so far. And now, he's let the pubs tank the economy, which will severely threaten his re-election, so I'm left wondering what the hell he was thinking. 14th A was the way to go. Funky I hear what you're saying, but I wouldn't go that far. No, you can't bargain with crazy, but the President was left with a choice of sucky (dealing with the Tea Party) and suckier (letting the economy tank). He chose "sucky", which is consistent with your previous analysis of him as a pragmatist. I also don't think the 14th was a legitimate option - the last thing you want is a draw-out "separation of powers" court battle going into an election cycle -- in my opinion, that would be far more costly than a tanking economy. I think the President's best prospect for re-election is sitting back and letting the Republicans and Tea Party bloody each other's noses in the primaries and wait to see if a candidate emerges who isn't a dingbat or a guy even Republicans can't stand.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 4, 2011 14:37:10 GMT
Discussions are more fun when you don't respond to the other persons comments and rather just repeat previous ideas and point at non-sequitors. Lolz. Funky
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 4, 2011 18:12:04 GMT
So sure, if you insist, then you can claim I hate governments. You'd be wrong, but we won't let little things like fact get in your way, shall we? At least attempt to be internally consistant.
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 4, 2011 20:20:52 GMT
I'm not really gonna go deep into govt. vs no govt. No govt is anarchy which really = no growth or stability because there is no system to protect your property, goods and privelages except yourself. Grossly oversimplified but there it is. No govt at all is bad.
The main problem is that the american, and sadly many other, governments have become kabuki theatre. And there really isnt any solutions on the table for fixing it. It all comes down to money. You need money to get elected. You get money by catering to your masters who are generally corperations and rich special interest groups. If you dont have any money, you have no power.
The system is completely broken at almost all levels and will probably not be reformed in our lifetimes barring some kind of disaster that leaves us no choice but reform. And even then it might not happen. Call me a pessimist but there it is. I also find it funny that in all this harping on government no one mentions the american ppl. This mess is almost all our fault in the first place.
It's not very PC but....the american people have been voting like a pack of window licking retards for the last 16 years. Locally, statewide and federally. And it really wasnt tons better before that. We have a voting turnout of around 55% for presidential elections. Reportedly, for non presidential elections it's the mid 30 percentile. That tells you how seriously we take our responsibilities as citizens in this country. It's really, really sad to think that our ancestors fought and died for the privelage of voting and the freedoms we enjoy, and only 30-55% of the ppl even bother.
And when they do vote? It's a chore, and too many ppl just vote for what the TV tells them to. I can count on the fingers of one hand the ppl I personally know that spend at least one hour going over the proposed legislation/candidates on the ballot and dont just look at the title of the bill and the pros/cons before voting.
I used to be really heated about these things. But then I came to a rather sad realization. The american ppl have the government they deserve. The government of liars, economic terrorists, and special interest pandering crooks that they voted for.
|
|